Dame Dash’s attorneys T. Newell and Justin H. Sanders, Esqs., of Sanders Roberts LLP, filed motions to withdraw as Dame Dash’s legal representation as of Friday, April 5.
The attorneys notified all parties involved in the matter, according to court documents that were obtained online.
Sanders and Newell assert that Dash had not paid them for their services when they resigned from their position as the embattled executive’s legal counsel because of the executive’s “breach of contractual obligations to the firm.”
Damon Dash has until April 29 to locate new legal representation for himself. He will be allowed to represent himself if he doesn’t find replacements, even though this is extremely uncommon at the federal level.
The company was representing him following a lawsuit from photographer Monique Bunn. Due to the fact that the mogul “failed to fulfill their financial obligations under their retainer agreement, the firm initiated an enforcement action against them,” according to the firm’s allegation.
Related stories
In his initial filing on behalf of the photographer in late February, Christopher Brown asked the courts to reopen Bunn’s damages case against the hip-hop executive, arguing that the prior case’s jury was not fully aware of the extent of the damages Bunn had suffered as a result of Dash’s purported actions.
The 285-page memorandum of law claims that Dame Dash acknowledged the worth of the images he purportedly failed to disclose to Bunn and that he failed to fairly compensate her for using them in the manner that he had (that is, outside the purview of promotional purposes). Brown maintained that the case needed to be reopened because of this.
“Each photo was worth $1,500, according to the uncontested evidence presented at trial, which should have led to a verdict for at least $384,750,000. Professional photographers typically rely on licensing sales of their portfolios to supplement their income, and Ms. Bunn’s financial prospects were severely damaged by the defendant’s actions. The jury gave Ms. Bunn zero and disregarded the valuation evidence,” wrote Brown.
“It is inconceivable how a jury could determine that a professional photographer’s thousands-photo portfolio and photography equipment could be worth zero. Particularly when both the plaintiff and the defendants attest to millions of dollars in damages. In these circumstances, a new trial is necessary.
